“Understanding why was more interesting than understanding who. The story of why things are the way they are is heartbreakingly beautiful.”

———

Keegan Allen

=============

Ok. This is a lot about some harsh business truth (a good idea shouldn’t be implemented if it isnt a good fit for a business) as well as a different business perspective on a different “Why” and why this perspective matters.

I admit. I chafe a little on the Simon Sinek “people buy your Why”thought mostly because I believe it is the wrong “Why” question. His Why is a slightly misguided and oft misused Purpose Why. My Why gets to the core of what makes a business a business – its soul not its Purpose. By the way. This ‘soul’ can be an amalgamation of some wacky adopted bad things (beliefs, process, systems) and good things (loyalty, heart, integrity, beliefs).

Regardless. Yeah. I am one of those wacky business people who will listen for hours to stories about why things are the way they are at a business. Even wackier? I am not one of those business people who act surprised when I hear all the “why it is what it is” stories.

Many people want to hear about the people.

Many people want to hear about the ideas … or even what someone thinks or what they want.

Many people want to let others talk about whatever they want to talk about.

All of that is well and good. But me? Give me the story of “why the voodoo you do is done this way.”

I am actually surprised more businesses don’t ask that question or are as curious about it. I am surprised because if you know the ‘why’ you at least have a fighting chance of offering something doable & constructive. In fact. While many business people shake their heads over all the crazy “why shit happens” stories the truth is … well … that crazy stuff actually offers the truth. The ‘why’ gives us reality. Bad reality sometimes? Sure. But reality nonetheless.

Far too often we offer business folk offer solutions, and many times really good solutions, which are simply non practical for the business and people we are offering it to. Crazy as it sounds … not every business can implement a good idea. In fact trying to implement a good idea in a business whose “why it is” doesn’t align with the idea more often than not creates a nightmare idea.

A business is a business. It comes with all the warts and positives gained throughout the years.

To be clear.

Yes. I like to hear the objective.

Yes. I absolutely love to hear the vision <assuming someone actually has one>.

But when push comes to shove while all that stuff is fine and dandy, but if you don’t know why things are the way they are or why that objective hasn’t been attained yet or why that vision has been sitting on some shelf collecting dust for several years, you are screwed. You are screwed because “why things are the way they are”, 99% of the time, have a reason. You may not like the reason, or reasons, but it is a reflection of reality.

It doesn’t mean you cannot change some of the whys.

It doesn’t mean you can’t jump, side step or tunnel under some of the whys.

But why shit is the way it is reflects the realities of that particular business. And you either have to face that fact or ignore at your own peril. Ignoring it most likely means whatever great idea you are offering that business is doomed.

I cannot tell you how many really good ideas I have seen die because they just didn’t take into account the ‘why things are the way they are’ in that business. It is the amateur business consultant who suggests that ‘with the proper internal alignment initiative we can get this idea up & running to the benefit of the business’ for a businesses. They are amateurs because they assume you can reshape all the “why it is” to make it fit the idea.

I don’t think I am that smart, but suffice it to say I am fairly sure most experienced business people can see good solutions for any business fairly quickly once they get up to speed on that business and its situation.

Most people can do that.

But solutions are not all round pegs and businesses are not all round holes. I cannot tell you how many really good solutions I have tossed in the trash simply because they would never be implemented by the business it would have been really good for. Suffice it to say … a lot.

I would note that the opening quote resonated with me mostly because of the last thing I just wrote.

It is heartbreaking to sit in some business meeting and you have the great solution right there at your fingertips and you know after listening to the ‘why things are the way they are’ stories you have to leave it right there on the table and shove it somewhere into some unlabeled folder.

That doesn’t mean you can’t come up with something else that helps. But, oh, it is heartbreaking when the best solution is just not doable.

What helps me get over it?

Maddening or not I find the ‘why things are the way they are’ stories beautiful — beautifully tragic, beautifully fortunate, beautifully doomed and beautifully hopeful. And I think it helps me better find the “beautiful solution.”

In the end … business is almost always a beautiful struggle between “why it is what it is” and “what I would like to do.”

All that said.

Yes. Some “why shit is done this way” should be dismantled. But for today, at this time and on this topic, people should sit back and ponder the thought most businesses need to get shit done now and not dismantle shit now & get shit done later. Ponder that because many of us who get businesses “unstuck” (consultants) cannot afford to offer unusable great ideas to functionally dysfunctional (companies with quirks) businesses. Our job is to elevate them. Sometimes this means holding a great idea that is right for their business until you can figure out how to make the organization right for the idea. Until then? You develop a beautiful idea matched to the beauty of the organization that exists.

Every year around “Black Friday” I get asked about the value of marketing in a capitalistic society. Here is my view on whether Marketing is evil (or ethical versus unethical). Vilhjamur (from the quote) was a kick ass anthropologist (known for his description of the “Blond Eskimo” which is a Copper Inuit), his discovery of new lands in the Arctic, his approach to travel and exploration, and his theories of health and diet. I am not sure what the hell he knew about advertising, but he did say the quote I used.

I believe marketing people generally fall into three buckets.

1. Those who fabricate unimportant truths and tell you that they are important <these people are hacks and should be fired and told to pick up trash on the sides of highways>

2. Those who use existing unimportant truths and convince you that they are important <this is the largest group and will vary on a spectrum between those who do this knowingly – which puts them close to the highway garbage category – and those who are blissfully ignorant of what they are doing>

3. Those who take important truths and tell you that they are important <scarily this group may have the toughest job because we people are consistently uninterested in many important truths>

It would be nice to suggest this is a simple 1 to 3 scale or, at minimum, a one to 5 scale, but I believe someone could quite successfully argue this three group scoring would be a 1 to 10 scale with lots of broad interpretation and lots of caveats & excuses. Before any marketing person starts blathering about with caveats & excuses please make sure you read Bill Bernbach’s “Do this or Die” advertisement he wrote to advertising & marketing people (see marketing is evil part 2).

All that said I empathize with people who suggest marketing is evil (evil being a broader term for “convincing people to buy shit they don’t really need or want to buy before they saw the marketing”).

I empathize because if I were to do some scoring I believe I would tend to see a lot of 4’s and 5’s.

I empathize because I just don’t see a lot of marketing that seems to approach selling stuff from a “what is in the best interest of the people” perspective.

Look. I am all for capitalism and selling stuff, but a lot of marketing seems to lack a deeper moral/ethical substance. Not all, but some <a lot>. What makes it even more difficult to defend and discuss is that it is really difficult to put your finger on the core issue/rot/compromise that seems to creep into the internal moral compass one would hope marketers would have.

Why? Because of what I called ‘unimportant truths versus important truths.’ Both of which are truths just with some interpretation issues thrown in to make it all fuzzy.

About marketing truths

A beginning thought:

===============

“Record companies are in the marketing business. Fashion probably wasn’t evil before marketing people got involved and tried to invent themselves and sell it to America’s youth by convincing them that the rest of America’s youth was already partaking. Fashion probably began as a groundswell of beauty: the tribe enjoying the way the buildings look and music sounds, right now, in this moment. That’s valuable because it allows for substance to shift styles. But marketing will do anything to avoid substance and engage only in style. No longer beauty that falls from trees like apples, fashion becomes shiny, scary chemical candy, unnatural and unhealthy.”

Kristen Hersh

==================

Ok. There are so many great thoughts within it … well … it is scary.

‘fashion probably began as a groundswell of beauty.”

Think about this one. This is a big thought, much bigger than just about the fashion industry, & relevant to all of marketing. This whole thought revolves around substance versus style as the issue. It suggests marketing has no substance … hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … or, maybe better said, it thrives less on substance than style. Here is the bigger thought hidden in there … “valuable because it allows for substance to shift styles.”

So. Substance creates beauty all on its own and marketing creates style to showcase that which may, or may not, have substance. Or, as earlier noted, maybe marketing becomes dependent upon unimportant truths.

Oh, even worse, “created truths” (a creative way of saying ‘lies’).

Ok. Does this alone make marketing evil? No. Ok, well, not all the time.

Because the key is substance and the truths that reside within.

Marketing has a habit of “creating truths.” Yeah … yeah .. yeah … someone is gonna come back and suggest “no, we aren’t creating truths, we are simply uncovering truths.”

Semantics.

Marketing is in the business of tearing apart the fabric of thought and identifying specific threads within the fabric that may be worth pointing out to people. In the end? It is a thread. And not the fabric.

An example?

“Stores Create More Holidays; Tissues Made for Summer, Pink Irons for Fall”

(Wall Street Journal in august 2011)

People see 4 seasons (unless you live in California or the North Pole) but retailers see anywhere from 13 to 20 seasons. All designed to get shoppers into their stores and buy stuff.

The fabric? The season. The threads? The 13 to 20 “seasons” retailers see.

Once again, is this evil, or lying, or even “unimportant truths”? This is a really really gray area. Creating more holidays. They are creating more sales, but inevitably they are just trying to create more interest. They do all of this because retailers want impulse purchases (oh, by the way, which naturally happen to any of us … and marketing doesn’t create this … you <your own head> creates this).

Anyway. Suffice it to say what they do is try to get you in the store more often because the more often you visit the more likely you are to buy stuff. Marketing does all of this quite thoughtfully.

So. Research says the average retail shopper visits a store once every two to three weeks. And shoppers go to the grocery store every seven to 10 days. That means traditional retailers added grocery items hoping to make people make more frequent shopping trips.

Do I begrudge retailers this? Nope. They have a business to run. And by being so “thoughtful” are they evil <in their quasi-manipulation of us shopping folk>? Nope.

And are they lying? Nope.

Let’s tear apart the fabric a little more.

In other words, let me try and and help you understand why there are a boatload of people out there who say marketing is evil. Because this next example really starts talking about “unimportant truths” and, in the end, we are talking about some sense of mental manipulation.

Let’s look how they do it to see if its lying or evil. Let’s look at a retailer’s 4, oops, 13 season year:

– Superbowl

– New Year’s Resolutions (January)

– Lawn and Garden (April)

– Back to School/College(July through August)

– Gifts for children; early entertaining décor (October, November)

– Last-minute gifts, stocking stuffers, food/entertaining (December)

– Health and Wellness January features exercise equipment, supplements and vitamins, items tied to shoppers’ New Year’s resolutions

– Holiday Entertaining and Gifting (November, begins the day after black Friday)

– Organization and Storage(January)

(and I am sure I missed a couple in there as well as I probably got some of the dates wrong, but, you get the point)

Why do they do this? Research shows that people are usually willing to spend more during “special seasons” and even more dollars if they are spending on their children.

Look. I don’t believe marketing is evil, but it is surely “wily smart” in that it is always seeking to find conscious or subconscious triggers to motivate behavior to encourage people to consume things.

But. Here is a truth. Impulse or not, marketing cannot really make someone do something they don’t want to do. I would also point out in today’s world with return guarantees, free return shipping, etc., it is almost next to impossible to maintain what could be construed as impulsive behavior decision (because it can so easily be “undone”).

Marketing is a business. You can certainly expect a retailer, and marketers, to make shopping as much of a science as possible. By “science” I mean by often “managing unimportant truths.” In addition, they will build model stores, displays and end-caps (things at the end of the aisles) to see what makes people buy the most.

Once again, is that evil? Nope. It’s just being smart about your business.

In general I don’t think marketing is the embodiment of the Evil Empire. I think most Marketing people just try to do the best job they can to sell things they represent.

Now. “The best” can be pretty bad at times.

Simplistically. Bad marketing is bad. And ignorance, or doing what you believe is the right thing to do, is no excuse for bad marketing or making the unimportant important. Good marketing sells substance or (still good) expresses the existing emotional relationships people have with products.

On marketing’s good days it ultimately helps the best companies and products win over the bad stuff.

On marketing’s BEST days they actually get people to believe the important truths.

Next.

Evil: confusing evil messaging and evil actions

I brought up the unimportant versus important truths upfront because I believe marketing‘s evilness really should be defined by that. But. issues gets compounded not just by what they say, but also by how and when they say it.

So beyond the message we shouldn’t get confused by marketer’s actions (which are mostly not evil, just absurdly annoying – which I imagine could be construed as some level of evilness). I do wish more marketers would pay attention to information available to them. According to Pitney Bowes research, consumers surveyed in France, Germany, the UK and the U.S. have indicated which marketing activities draw them closer and which act as a repellent. If marketers would pay attention, people are quite clear about what they want from marketing interactions. If marketers would pay attention they would clearly see many of their actions are simply not having the intended effect. Worse, inappropriate communications often diminish a brand’s attractiveness, thereby losing people’s interest and ultimately even existing customers opt out.

So. The good things? Customer satisfaction surveys. 75% were fine with them. Great opportunity for marketers to “not sell” but rather learn and create customized messaging/experiences based on each consumer’s preferences.

“This survey confirms that brands should listen to consumers before they send out their communications. Every interaction must honor the interests of the customer first, only then is a relevant offer or call to action acceptable to consumers. Each conversation between a brand and a customer is an opportunity to delight or disappoint. We’re all learning how to do more of the former and less of the latter.”

PitneyBowes Reasearch

On websites, 59% say they appreciate personalization such as “Welcome <name>.” For transactional sites, especially where purchases are being made, it can be reassuring to know that the site recognizes your personal account details and has a record of interactions to draw upon <note: ‘personalization’ is being discussed in some fairly absurd creepy ways these days>.

Okay. Now the annoying stuff. And where marketing, I believe, just doesn’t help itself. Efforts which are meant to be inviting but are just plain irritating to most consumers.

– Asking customers to support a brand’s charity or ethical concerns (84%)

– Sending offers from third-parties (83%)

– Encouraging interaction with other consumers via an online community (81%).

Is this stuff evil? Of course not. But if you add these actions on top of the fact a marketer is most likely communicating an “unimportant truth” it is not only annoying but it is irrelevant. You have been intrusive and unimportant.

The double kiss of death.

Anyway.

Evil is always associated with people.

Truth or lie.

Annoying actions or relevant actions.

It all comes down to who is pulling the trigger. Here is where marketing runs into its most trouble: marketing people. Ok. Maybe it’s not the people , it’s just their common sense decision-making that seems to run into trouble. All too often it seems the marketing people manage to run into troubling ethical dilemmas and inevitably make some really bad, or certainly questionable, choices (with a consumer’s perspective in mind).

Most of the time these bad choices consist of less than the entire truth … or full disclosure of information the customer would want to know to make a reasonable decision. Let’s call this “selective truth telling.” Or, as earlier pointed out, selecting one thread in the fabric to point out. Or even “trying to convince you an unimportant truth is … well … important.” And, at its worst? Trying to convince you an unimportant truth is REALLY important. This is probably the best example of “the lie of silence” (which I have written about before). It’s all very tricky because most products & services tend to be good, useful products. And the ethical dilemma is how much information is it okay to hide <not tell> from the buyer to make a sale.

Oh. Silence. Omission. This is where many marketers will hide behind the excuse “but we only have so much time to capture someone’s attention.”

Shame on those marketers. You always have time to tell the important truth. And, in your heart of hearts, a good marketer knows that honesty and important truths win in the long run.

In the end, I do believe the thought of marketing as evil (in a true sense) is absurd. In an abstract sense (like Kristen mentions in her quote I used)? Well. Possibly. Evil is a strong word. It could be truly that marketing, when gone awry, can warp the true essence of the intent. And that may seem evil, but it is just wrong.

However.

Evil or not.

As a marketer myself, I would like to remind all marketers we have a responsibility. What we say and what we do DOES impact what people think and ultimately can affect what they do. With that ‘power’ comes a responsibility.

And it would be evil, yes, evil for us to forget that.

Black Friday seems to bring out the worst in marketing. Maybe it is because on that one day, above all, Marketing people forget their greater responsibility in their pursuit of a business responsibility – sell shit. And maybe that is where I should end. Its not about evil or good, or ethical versus unethical, its about not being a shit while selling shit. Period.

“But the brain does much more than just recollect it inter-compares, it synthesizes, it analyzes, it generates abstractions. The simplest thought like the concept of the number one has an elaborate logical underpinning. “

—

Carl Sagan

==============

I am constantly trying to communicate something incommunicable, to explain something inexplicable, to tell about something I only feel in my bones and which can only be experienced in those bones.”

—

Franz Kafka

===================

This is about ideas and thinking. I am a scribbler. And a sketcher. And a pencil guy. I carry around a stack of index cards & constantly sketch out thoughts for people. My index cards are strewn around the world. I am sure some are used for dart boards, some for a good laugh & some actually was a seed for some idea.

I purposefully used the word “seeds” because I think we would be much better off if we thought of ideas that way. Why? Well. Seeds die or remain underground or get eaten by some squirrel if it isn’t protected, nurtured, watered and pampered in some way to insure it flourishes.

And while there are gobs of articles highlighting ideation process and such , to me, all that matters is an idea doesn’t die with poor articulation. A good idea poorly presented dies. Even great ideas poorly articulated die.

Now.

A shitload of people will want to talk about PowerPoint & presenting & a whole bunch of shit that just gets in the way. Those are simply ways to do it. What matters is how you do it.

Which leads me to the Feynman technique. It is essentially explaining a concept or idea to yourself, on a piece of paper, as if you were teaching it to someone else with little background knowledge. This is all about it’s all making sure you understand it and can you explain it if not simply simple enough to be understood.

I had no clue who Feynman was when I start taking out a piece of paper to find out if what I was thinking made sense on paper. Over time I have found an index card does it for me. it forces the constraint I need to either, well, get it or not get it. If I can’t articulate my idea or thought on an index card I mentally decide it isn’t worth a shit as an idea. Ok. Maybe it is but I know I haven’t figured out a way to articulate it so that it will not die.

Look.

I am not suggesting I am a great idea person or thinker but I am suggesting creating a process to elevate all people’s thinking does not necessarily benefit the smaller group of people who are actually good at thinking & creating ideas. What I mean by that is with the intent to create a better thinking organization we tend to want to throw everyone into the same bucket <I guess we do that to encourage inclusiveness & ‘fairness’>. Unfortunately this means your best of the best get pulled out of what may make them the best & force them into the “unwashed masses” <I am kidding on that phrase but you get the point>.

We should always be thinking two parallel paths. One to elevate the majority and one to empower the minority.

Why? To protect ideas.

Minds work in a variety of ways. It seems to me that organizations should think less about organizing minds but rather freeing minds. If you have someone like me, buy me a stack of index cards & have someone riffle through tem on occasion to see if there is a seed somewhere.

I will say that when I was running a small company I would pin them up on a conference room wall and during meetings anyone at any time could pull it off the wall and say “WTF you thinking?” or “I want to talk about this.”

I learned to articulate better as well as get less defensive about ideas.

The employees learned to articulate better and come up with their own ideas in their own ways. By not having an organizational process but sharing my personal process we ended up having a process.

My point is ideas are seeds. Some don’t deserve to grow & flourish but some do & we should be learning to articulate ideas better to save those seeds.

This is not just about creating value that matches wheat you want to charge but how you present can affect the perceptions.

Discussing value and price perceptions almost always reminds me of the following line from the Ballad of the Old Man of Leningrad: “and where is the end? You’ll find that out when you get there.”

We can discuss value until we are blue in the face … but you will never know what you have actually constructed <in someone’s head> until you get to the end <wherever that is … oh … oops … sorry … you never reach the end>.

We so often talk about ‘value’ in the business world as if it is some nirvana space that once it is attained you can look around in wonder and live happily ever after.

That’s nuts.

Value is a never ending equation <quest, objective, whatever>. As easily as you can gain it <although it is actually not that easy> you can just as easily lose it … or have it diminished … and even increased.

Anyway.

It constantly puzzles me how often I get into business discussions where people bitch & moan about not winning a project or assignment because (a)I had the lowest price but didn’t have the relationship or (b)my price was too high. And I could actually be having this conversation with two competitors in the same bidding process … who lost out to a third ;someone’ … who had neither relationships nor the lowest price and won.

I say that because this rant is about the fact that sometimes it isn’t about the price you are offering but rather how you presented yourself, or whatever it is you are presenting, and how that impacted the perception of the price you ‘should’ offer … which … unfortunately to many ‘bid losers’ … is not the one you actually do offer. I used to think this was relatively basic business, if not sales, understanding that how you present yourself <what you actually show & say> creates a value perception in the audience … but then I realized it wasn’t as I kept getting caught up in this same discussion over and over again.

Look.

I have used a 5 page power point presentation <4 people each presenting one page> and won a bid process with highest price … and had a 50 page PowerPoint and won a bid process with next to lowest price.

Just to note … and I have lost both ways.

My point in noting the number of pages in the presentation is that … well … the number is irrelevant <as long as they are relevant & meaningful you can have a gazillion if you want>. But. It is all what you say … combined with how you say it … which leads to a created perception for value <or an offered price> prior to actually providing the cost/bid … then when you actually provide the cost it either is all aligned or it’s not.

But … sorry … there is no formula.

Regardless.

The presentation matters. People say “I had the lowest bid <but I didn’t win>.” Others say “we were too pricey <our price was too high>.” And when it happens <you lose> people want to dissect their pricing and the bid and gnash their teeth over how to lower their price “to be more competitive” or whatever.

Well … sure … you should certainly explore your pricing … but … typically your price is your price. And if you got the scope of work correct and can agree on how much time and effort it will take to complete the project scope <and that … by the way … can be a HUGE discussion and debate> … in the end … your price is your price.

But here is an unfortunate business truth … high prices win as often as low prices. And I know this for a fact because I dislike being the lowest and am okay with being the highest <prefer upper high> and have seen more wins than losses.

Uh oh.

Then what is it? <if I cannot blame my price!> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ………… Well. How about the presentation?

Because there is a presentation to price perception that needs to be factored in to any evaluation.

<note: this is often heresy to bring up … because typically the presentation has been fine tuned to a point where it is mind numbingly dull with no edges and therefore is flawless in all presenters minds>

Yup.

The presentation has to meet the price delivered.By the way … simplistically this means you can undersell yourself … as well as oversell yourself.

I say that because this is about alignment. And, no, this isn’t about ‘first impressions’ because a presentation is a compilation/summary of impressions. To be clear … we all know this <but I will remind you anyway> … we are evaluating things all the time.

And even if we recognize that we are evaluating <like in viewing a presentation> we still don’t even recognize much of the evaluation that takes place because much of it is actually usually automatic, subconscious. There has been a boatload of research done on evaluation which I will not bore you with … but will share a cliff notes summary of key points:

This process of evaluation can be broken down into the rising and falling of two perceptions: Perceived Cost and Perceived Benefit. To be clear, the cost of something is not just money. Cost is the receipt of something negative or the release of something positive whereas Benefit is the release of something negative or the receipt of something positive.

Any time a value presentation is made, be it a candy bar in the checkout rack at a grocery store, a pair of earrings online, or a proposal to marry, there is an initial phase when you open your mind “file cabinet” and pull the “folder” associated with whatever value is being presented. As you open this folder, certain things will jump out at you, influencing your initial perceived cost and benefit of the value presented. What is in that folder, what items you pull first, and how much each item affects you depends on two things:

1. Your history with the value presented

2. How it is initially presented

It’s also important to note here that the point at which a visitor makes a commitment to the transaction is not the same point at which they complete the transaction. The time between the commitment and the transaction should be as short and simple as possible. The more complex and time-consuming it is, the more chance the frustration of the transaction process or the “cold feet” effect could keep it from happening.

Look.

I have gobs of practical experience with this <and the scars to prove it> presentation to value perception alignment issue … but I also have some other interesting research on my side:

——————-

‘The pricing practices discussed are highly prevalent in today’s society. While classical economic theory suggests that people will act rationally, using cost benefit analysis to make choices, scientific research shows that this is not the case. Humans do not have the capacity to recognise and evaluate all the available information in today’s complex environment, nor the time or motivation. Instead, people use mental short-cuts, or heuristics, to deal with this complexity.

– Whilst heuristics can usefully guide our behaviour and allow humans to function in the world, they are not perfect calculations and are subject to occasional and sometimes costly mistakes. Importantly, heuristics leave people exposed to external influences, including pricing cues. The literature on pricing practices suggests that pricing cues provided by retailers can affect consumer behaviour and value perceptions.

– Compared to presenting a total price partitioning prices into a base price and surcharge can significantly increase consumers’ positive evaluations and purchase intentions, and can lower search intentions. This is because consumers may fail to fully adjust from the initial (lower) price of the base good and therefore underestimate the total price of the product.

– Evidence suggests that people tend to stick with the default option, even when this option has major, long-term consequences.’

University College London 2010

——————————-

Well.

Like it or not … even our presentations are being evaluated through this wacky thing called heuristics. Pricing cues abound within presentations <value cues certainly do abound> … and they scream at the top of their lungs even if you aren’t looking at them.

Even worse?

You can even be silent and be giving a price or value cue. For example.

Bach was a master of ‘negative space’ … building masterful musical combinations … he also used silences that are as eloquent and thought provoking as notes, tempo and syncopation.

<I used Bach because I tend to believe most of us who have built a presentation kind of feel like a composer>.

By the way. While you may be thinking I am only discussing big important presentations which have been rehearsed and rehearsed … but this discussion actually pertains to almost any size and quantity of project management discussions.

What do I mean?

Well.

I have seen 5000 project estimates generated for one business in one year. And on that type of business I have seen a tendency to simply slide an estimate across the table <or emailed> and just ask for a signature for go ahead. No presentation … just slide the estimate over to a client and look for the quick & easy ‘get it going’.

Uhm.

And the client customer slides it right back and says “nope … too <fill in value reason here>.”

And I have seen 5 project estimates generated for one business in one year … and even on these businesses a project can be mis-presented or not even presented at all. And the client customer slides that one right back at ya too.

In the end.

Value is kind of like … well … the world and life In fact … it reminds me of something I read:

———————–

“The world is not as simple as we like to make it out to be. The outlines are often vague and it’s the details that count.

Nothing is really truly black or white and bad can be a disguise for good or beauty … and vice versa without one necessarily excluding the other.

Someone can both love and betray the object of its love … without diminishing the reality of the true feelings <and value>.

Life <and business whether we like to admit it or not> is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting where all frontiers are artificial <therefore unique is basically artificial in its inevitable obseletion> where at any moment everything can either end only to begin again … or finish suddenly forever … like an unexpected blow from an axe.

Where the only absolute, coherent, indisputable and definitive reality … is death. We have such little time when you look at Life … a tiny lightning flash between two eternal nights.

Everything has to do with everything else.

Life is a succession of events that link with each other whether we want them to or not.”

Arturo Perez Revarte

——————————————

That all maybe too poetic in discussing something like giving presentations and creating value but simply put … “everything has to do with everything else.”

Well.

That certainly encompasses that wacky thing called ‘value.’ Presentations are part of everything. And if you are not careful … your presentation can send a different value, or price, cue than what you will actually offer as your price.

That is misaligned messaging <including non verbal cues into the messaging header>. And misaligned is bad <that is a Bruceism>.

So I thought I had left the whole right brain left brain discussion behind.

And it reared its ugly head again one more time just the other day. And <distressingly> it was in a business environment, with senior people, discussing people’s strengths & weaknesses.

Look.

This whole right brain, left brain thing about creativity versus ‘logical’ thinking has to stop.

Stop … now <please>.

The truth?

We use our whole brain for thinking. Not halves. And right brain left brain mumbo jumbo is just that … a bunch of mumbo jumbo crap.

Yup.

The whole thing is bullshit.

Trust me <you don’t really have to because I will share reasons why you should>. And if you don’t believe me … well … if you ever want to drive a psychologist/psychiatrist/neurologist/any ‘ist’ crazy … bring it up.

With that … a reminder on what his whole thing is. In the right-left mythology … the left brain is logical, ordered, and analytic, and it supports reading, speech, math, and reasoning. In the same myth … the right brain is more oriented towards feelings and emotions, spatial perception, and the arts, and is said to be more creative.

Well.

Interesting myth. And it is just a myth. It is wrong (wrong & wrong … and maybe even wrong again).

And we have actually known for at least 30 years that this characterization is incorrect.

In fact the guy who probably put us all in this mess originally <Mike Gazzaniga who created the study in the 60’s that some pop psychologist used to write some fantasy-like left/right brain business books that became best sellers> who was a pioneer of modern study of brain hemispheric differences immediately tried to put a stop to the craziness as soon as it began with a book chapter titled “Left brain, right brain: A debunking.”

And he did that 25 years ago.

<note: he wrote it because the original crap was begun after he did a brain hemisphere study in the 60’s>

And, yet, there is still plenty of bunk to go around.

Its crazy.

I myself have gnashed my teeth <and sometimes growled> against the “left brain / right brain” myth for years <probably not 25 but a bunch>. It usually is personal <and I believe this is so for most people>. People are always trying to tell me how “right-brained” I am <or left … I get confused>.

Which I always find amusing since whatever I am doing invariably needs whatever the other side of the brain was supposed to be doing.

Plus. I would like to think I am using my whole frickin’ brain.

But.

It mostly aggravates me ,and kind of disturbs me> because it is deliberately misleading.

It has been used to support endless management dialogue telling us that we should liberate ourselves from too much left-brain ‘logical’ thinking and enjoy the fruits of our liberated, right-brained creativity <or vice versa depending on your management belief system>.

Look.

People may be inherently more visual, aural, spatial, sequential, intuitive, rational <or irrational> talented or non-talented … but it ain’t because of anything to do with left versus right brain.

Ok.

If you don’t trust me I pulled this from a medical journal.

A more technical explanation of how the whole thing went haywire:

==

You’ve probably heard this left/ right brain dichotomy before. It goes something like this: the left hemisphere of the brain is logical, deductive, mathematical, etc., while the right hemisphere is artistic, visual and imaginative. The idea stems at least partly from the classic studies of split brain patients performed by Sperry and Gazzaniga in the 1960s.

There are some functional asymmetries in the brain, and it is true that certain regions of both hemispheres are specialized for particular functions. Speech illustrates this, but also shows that nothing is ever so simple when it comes to the brain: in most right-handed people, speech is processed in both hemispheres, but predominantly in the left. In some left-handers, speech is processed either predominantly in the right hemisphere or on both sides.

So the notion that someone is “left-brained” or “right-brained” is absolute nonsense. All complex behaviours and cognitive functions require the integrated actions of multiple brain regions in both hemispheres of the brain. All types of information are probably processed in both the left and right hemispheres (perhaps in different ways, so that the processing carried out on one side of the brain complements, rather than substitutes, that being carried out on the other).

An article was published this week in the venerable (and reliable) psychology journal Psychological Bulletin, which synthesized 67 brain imaging studies of creativity. Among other things, it showed that creativity is not especially a right-brain function. In fact, two of three broad classes of creative thought that have been studied seem not to depend on a single set of brain structures.

What we call “creativity” is so diverse that it can’t be localized in the brain very well.

One might think that this study would put to rest at least part of the left brain/right brain mythology, namely, that the right hemisphere of the brain is more responsible for creative thought than the left.

One would think so, but I wouldn’t count on it.

==

My conclusion?

I put the whole right/left brain thing in the same category as reading a horoscope or reading my own tarot cards. If you give someone a vague positive description in which they can see themselves they will tend to agree with you. And that is dangerous on a number of levels <if people actually believe it>.

Ok.

Here is the main reason I bring this up <beyond the fact it drives me crazy and it is still being seriously discussed in the business world>. It has a detrimental effect on education and how we manage our youth. It is as bad as social profiling when it comes to kids.

Left brain kid.

Right brain kid.

You carry that label and not only does the child begin to see themselves in that label <it is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy> the adults tag the child with the label. And start treating them that way. And expecting things based on the labeling.

All of a sudden the child is placed on the left, or right, brain treadmill <oops … I meant to say moving sidewalk>.

And then they are left there.

Uh oh.

One day the child wants to jump off the treadmill to hop on the other one for a while … <adults> “whoa … get back on your treadmill … you know that other one is only for the right brainers … and you will be much more successful on the left brain treadmill <sidewalk>.”

That, my friends, reads scary even if it seems just a theory.

And we all know that at some place, at some time, with some children … this is actually happening.

We need to squash this left/right brain myth forever. Now <please … again>.

We use all of our brain.

Brains are ambidextrous.

And even if you, personally, do not want to believe this, well, please … at least teach kids that is is so.

====================================

“Rabbit’s clever,” said Pooh thoughtfully.“Yes,” said Piglet, “Rabbit’s clever.”“And he has Brain.”“Yes,” said Piglet, “Rabbit has Brain.”There was a long silence.“I suppose,” said Pooh, “that that’s why he never understands anything.”

“Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it is the only one you have.”

==========

Émile Auguste Chartier <Alain>

———

Well.

I love this quote.

One idea is really <really> dangerous ground to stand on <part 1>. Dangerous in that it may be the most solid ground you have ever stood upon … and yet … you may leave it seeking another idea, and place, to go.

One idea is really <really> dangerous ground to stand on <part 2>. Dangerous in that it may be the most unstable ground you have ever stood on … shit … it may simply be a lily pad in the middle of a volcano … and yet … it’s ‘moment of stability’ seduces you to hold on to the idea like it is a gift from God.

Ideas, in general, are dangerous creatures. But ‘one idea’ is particularly dangerous.

Suffice it to say if you aren’t in the <multiple> ideas business as a company you are simply in the ‘doing most effectively’ <which is actually “we all do well so please pick me by my price”> business.

Ideas are the lifeblood of any business.

And ideas … at least good ones … are one of the most elusive objectives anyone can think of. You can set up the best of the best methodologies, you can train, you can encourage, you can give everyone funky crayons <and remind everyone that because we all grew up with crayons anyone can be creative – which is a slightly absurd encouragement in its own right> … but suffice it to say … a good idea just happens <and you hope like hell they happen when you actually need them>.

I believe most creative idea generator people are highly attuned to the where and the how they come up with ideas <therefore ‘forced idea thinking environments’ are not effective>.

Oh.

I also believe that that entire ‘how to’ knowledge is mostly nontransferable to others.

That said.

There is an interesting guy named Chic Thompson who, while I think he says some mumbo jumbo type stuff with regard to ideas and coming up with them, has suggested two things that I believe are good for people to take note of when discussing the whole ‘coming up with an idea’ discussion:

– How you mentally approach ideas.

He says things like … rather than ask your students “what did you do at school today?” you should instead ask something like “what questions did you ask today?”

He also argues that changing the way we approach questions, problems, and solutions can reshape the outcomes <this sounds basic yet ‘idea creating methodology seems to fly in the face of this thought>.

In addition … I believe beyond rethinking the ‘how to’ generate ideas we also have to learn the mental assessment of risk and response. By that I mean I think ideas should typically be slotted so that mentally not only do we ask the right questions while thinking about an idea … we also ask the right questions in discussing an idea.

Someone came up with this chart <which I have recreated from some notes I made years ago>:

Factor: Time

Depth

Solution

Risk

Reward

Level One: Fast

Known

Expected

<comfortable>

None

A little

Level Two: Takes awhile

Unknown

Unexpected

<uncomfortable>

A little

A little

Level Three: Needs to germinate

Surprise

Challenges organization

<seems impossible>

A lot

A lot

<sorry for the crappy chart but I suck at creating these things>

I buy this. People who come up with ideas are typically quite comfortable letting things germinate and have them bubble up. On the other hand … non good idea thinkers like a ‘point & shoot’ process … and even more importantly … like the comfortable ‘know we/I can do’ type idea.

Idea generation can often feel slightly chaotic … and … well … it is. However … within that chaos a good idea generator tends to be able to reach in and pull something good out of all the swirling shit.

Uhm.

A lot of people don’t like that a process that looks like that.

Next thought from that Chuck guy.

– Ideas take time and a sense of relentlessness

I like to call it restlessness intertwined with a willingness and resilience to bear a shitload of failures <bad ideas> to find the solutions <good ideas>.

Apparently it took Chuck roughly 40 years to see an invention come full circle to its original solution in the right environment. Which led him to note … “when something goes wrong, something goes right … you learn from trial and error.”

40 years?!? <insert a ‘yikes’ here>.

Sorry folks … but an unspoken truth in the idea business is that 90% of great ideas are lost simply because when arrived at … it just wasn’t ‘their time’ … and when it DID become their time … they were in some landfill because they had landed in some trash can months, if not years. ago.

I say that <getting back to the one idea thought> because not only do we often suck at agreeing on the ‘one idea to focus on’ in the moment … we also tend to throw away a shit load of great ideas simply because it is not their time.

<note:in business … if you pull out an idea that was thought up months ago … or years ago … it cannot be used because it is … well … an old idea … or ‘it cannot be relevant because that was then and this is now’ – note: both those comments are dangerous because they are rooted in logic but absurd in practicality>.

Einstein was once asked what the difference was between himself and another person. He suggested that when challenged to find a needle in a haystack … others would stop when they found one … he tears apart the haystack looking for any and all that could be there.

Thompson’s version of that is he always suggests “always look for a second answer” when you imagine solutions to problems in a unique way. He was <is> a big proponent of young people bringing unique and fresh perspectives to discover creative outcomes.

I buy this.

Great ideas are typically born from other ideas. The original idea may be good … but they tend to be soft around the edges … and they need to be sharpened. I know that while I often like my first idea I will tend to ‘steal’ additional aspects from lesser ideas to strengthen another idea. It helps to look for and see all ideas and answers <albeit … in today’s business world many people struggle to discern crappy ideas from good ideas which inevitably means a good idea generator likes to protect a good idea by not offering ‘options’>..

“Thinking in opposites” … uncovering what can be flipped to get the right solution.

“Start off with what’s positive and then go to the negative” … then focus on making the negative positive <or how it represents some opportunity>.

I would be delighted to tell everyone what to do here … but I will note … because I cannot. What makes me hesitate to endorse any ‘idea generation protocol’ and ‘what questions to ask to stimulate effective ideas’ is that most ideas are actually thought up <insert a huge DOH! Here> in the shower or on the toilet.

Yup.

There are a bunch of surveys <informal and formal> and in general they have the following list of ‘where do you come up with your ideas’ when asking known & proven idea generators:

When showering or in bath

Commuting to work

Sitting on the toilet <note: this is good because it seems like per research we spend about 3 years of an average lifetime in the bathroom>

While falling asleep or waking up

During a boring meeting <note: this can also be an ideation or brainstorming meeting>

Leisure reading

Exercising

Most good ideas do NOT come from brainstorming meetings … or any meeting at all. And they rarely come at your desk.

Ideas tend to come from the stimulus of the setting <and what that setting does to your mind … relax & think at the same time>. Therefore … the corollary is … the loss of ideas comes from the stimulus of the setting.

By the way.

While there is absolutely a relationship between creative & ideas … not all creative people are good idea generators. That said. You increase the likelihood of good ideas if you encourage creativity.

And there is a reason I bring this up. While we give ‘everyone is creative’ a lot of lip service the reality is that we tend to squeeze the creativity out of people as time goes by.

Read this and be prepared to be depressed:

———

George Ainsworth Land, author of Grow or Die, gave five-year-olds a creativity test used by NASA to select innovative engineers. Ninety-eight percent of the children scored in the “highly creative” range. When these same children were retested at ten years old, only 30 percent were still rated “highly creative.” By the age of fifteen, just 12 percent of them were ranked “highly creative.”

What about the average adult population? Only 2 percent of the adults who took the NASA tests were rated as “highly creative.” Therefore, our lifetime creativity, measured in terms of our ability to generate a number of new ideas, is at its highest point at five years old and lowest around forty-four years old. It seems that creativity is not just learned, but unlearned as we advance through life.

——–

Shit.

My main response to what we just read <after I pulled myself out of the depths of despair … because I am WAY past even the lowest ideation point> is that all our ‘planned ideation processes’ kill creativity … they don’t enhance creativity.

<I believe I just suggested killing an entire industry>

In our ‘outcome focused business world’ where ‘let’s use process so we can be as efficient as possible with regard to everything we do’ <ideas included> the process most efficiently kills creativity.

All that said.

I will end with 5 Ideas secrets <these are not mine … they are from some expert who I have forgotten … but I like these secrets>:

– Creative Secret #1: Ideas are the currency of your future

– Creative Secret #2: You come up with only 1% of your ideas while at your desk.

– Creative Secret #3: By age 44, your creativity score is at a lifetime low and doesn’t go back up until retirement.

– Creative Secret #4: The world isn’t going to slow down

– Creative Secret #5: Good ideas are scary.

Oh.

And the last secret?

Go to the bathroom as often as possible. It increases the odds you will have an idea.

“The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark.”

——-

Michelangelo

=============

“Go higher and higher, until it becomes impossible to bring you down, I wanna use a microscope to locate you, don’t even dream of coming down.”

―

Michael Bassey Johnson

================

Ok.

……….. Pierre Pauselli …………..

Business, in general, has a wacky way of talking about bad news & ‘less-than-positive’ business information. In business, and Life I imagine on occasion, we look at down in some fairly absurd ways using voodoo math, clever graphs and … well … some dubious comparisons all to prove that down is actually up.

Yeah.

It has to be voodoo – math or graphics — to show both down AND up.

No shit. Really.

To them … well … Down isn’t down … it is really up <if only my bank balance could implement that math>.

Examples.

Unemployment is down this month <but its still up versus a year ago>.

Sales are down <but it’s up versus the rest of the category>.

Our new product is losing money <but we are getting new customers>.

And maybe the most famous ‘up is down’ scenario … “we have cut our spending but get more with what we have!” <always be very very leery of this one>.

WTF.

Let’s be clear.

In business … when is down, well, up?

(Answer to that question) ………. NEVER.

Down is down.

Down is bad.

Down is never the objective.

Sigh.

If I hear one more time in one more conference room my head will explode:

————–

“… well Mr. Giraffenee, it’s a tough economy right now. The category is trending downward at 11%, but we are only down 5%. So we are doing well in a tough category. In fact … <insert pregnant pause here> … we are actually up when you look it that way.”

To be fair it is easy to talk your way into the down but not really down rabbit hole of economic unreality <in fact … I say hanging my head sheepishly … I have done it myself years ago>. It is often a self-preservation, program preservation, technique <albeit a slightly dubious one>. Today’s management seems intent on finding something wrong to fix, someone to blame and some reason they will not look good. making down look up can be an effective way to protect a good long term idea in the short term <sad but true>.

To be fair It is extremely easy to justify ‘down but not down’ by saying if people aren’t spending, it must be ok that they are not spending with us. It is extremely easy to say if times are tight than that must be the reason they don’t value our brand as much <or any brand>. It’s a tough competitive world out there and it never hurts to remind everyone it is a tough competitive world.

Lastly.

To be fair … It is important to note that a person might not know he/she is doing something he/she shouldn’t do. Training in today’s business world is pitiful. Teaching people how to tell the tough truths, the harsh truths, is almost nonexistent.

Anyway.

It may be easy to fall into this ‘down is up’ double speak … but it is bullshit.

Up is up.

Growth is always the goal. And if you are not growing you are dying.

Here is something to chew on <a business truth as it were>.

A truth with no caveats on market status, economic challenges or budget constraints.

Business is out there.

People are buying stuff.

And there are plenty of people buying stuff.

Yeah.

Even today.

Even yesterday.

Even tomorrow.

Plenty of businesses are gaining market share and there are a boatload of profitable companies <flush with cash by the way>. And there are a lot of companies with increased sales. And there are a lot of growing companies.

The truth is that we have an extremely robustly sized economy out there my friends. When people talk about ‘shrinking economy’ or ‘shrinking industry’ … don’t laugh too hard in their faces … size is relative. No reasonable business is in an industry with only $100 dollar available and it is shrinking by $5.

Sales and growth are out there for the taking.

I say all this because it can be easy to justify doing what you are doing a variety of ways … and saying down isn’t really down is a way a lot of people do so.

Stop.

Just stop.

Up is attainable.

Growth opportunities are always there.

You may just have to be a little smarter to get it. “Smarter” almost always resides in appealing to consumer needs without losing sight of the fact you have to make money … profit. You cannot <and should not> discount your way to success. That path is a very slippery slope not only from consumer attitudes perspective <defining how they value you> but it is also puts a massive strain on profitability <which impacts the organization like a bad ripple effect>.

You have to be smart and insightful with how you talk with people you want to buy your stuff. Maybe you need to seek a new role, or a differently defined role, that is more vital and easier for consumers to rationalize. And, god forbid, tell the truth & have something worth paying for.

Here is a fact.

People will spend against need – real or perceived. They also search for value, but that doesn’t mean people will not spend premiums for quality. Or spend more money for a heightened sense of perceived need <which is actually a “want” if I was going to be technical with myself>.

Look at SUVs, Starbucks, Apple and Whole Foods markets <I could point out a shitload of under-the-radar businesses but you wouldn’t know who the are>.

All doing quite well thank you very much.

All ain’t the cheapest shit out there.

This is simply finding growth under pressure … and under exiting market conditions.

Harsh truth for everyone? Persistent sales stagnation is most likely a reflection of how people perceive needing what you have to offer more so than it is “the economy.”

(sorry to burst anyone’s excuse bubble with that)

If you want to look at the larger economic situation go ahead … but do so by just accepting an attitude that the economy’s growth is going to be minimal at best …with the risk of another sharp downturn very real … and quit whining and go out and find a way to grow. Businesses must not stop their quest for growth even in ‘bad times’ nor should they stop their quest under the guise that ‘well we were down … but not really.’

Here is one thing I can promise you about growth companies.

In every case, there are a group of people in that company that see things not just as they are, but as they could be.

And then they go out and get it.

No excuses.

So.

I guess I wrote this to warn people about people who stand up and say “we had a good year … we are not down as much as everyone else or the category.”

Down is never up.

And, by the way, up is attainable. Today. Yesterday. Tomorrow. No excuses.

I guess I wrote this to suggest to businesses that … well … the greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark

“I wish I had the courage not to fight and doubt everything… I wish, just once, I could say, ‘This. This is good enough. Just because I choose it.”

―

Chuck Palahniuk

===============

So.

Let me very clear upfront … while this piece will be on Russian involvement in the 2016 USA presidential election I am not discussing, nor suggesting, collusion or coordination of efforts between anything I will outline and the Trump campaign. The analysis of that will be done by greater minds than mine.

This piece is about what Russia did and the effect on the 2016 election. Let’s call this an analysis of the Russian marketing campaign to support Donald J Trump.

I have the fortune to exchange ideas, on occasion, with some highly qualified experts and several foreign policy thought leaders and all of them continuously grapple not with what Russia did but more so with how to talk about it. Which leads me to the horrible position that I find myself in <and I imagine any professional communications person with any significant experience is in>.

We know that Russia most likely influenced enough voters to have elected Donald J Trump.

There. I said it. The one sentence which seems to be on the lips of almost any credible thinking individual but never seems to be spoken. This has nothing to do whether I believe he is qualified or not … this is just a conclusion that anyone who knows shit about marketing & advertising has arrived at if they look at the campaign.

<note: this is easily provable … hire MillwardBrown, pay them $100k, give them all the voting information and attitude poll information and they could do a county comparison … they do this for marketing & advertising campaigns all the time to measure effectiveness>

Anyway. It took me a while to get there because the overarching narrative ‘cover’ for the election is, and always has been, “Russia never changed a vote or made someone do anything.” While every reasonable marketing person would debate the seeming lack of understanding in the concept of ‘ability to affect behavior through marketing’, it was easier for people to generally focus on the truth Russia never got into actual voting machines and changed votes.

This means it just took me a lot longer to get to the truth that many of my peers had already arrived at.

…. I did not want to know this ………..

Whew.

The truth. Russia changed votes and voting behavior.

What knowledge to have. What a wretched position to be in … to be a professional communications person and a believer in America democracy … that is the horrible position many of us find ourselves in.

Why?

Well. The majority of us know, if we view it through a professional lens, that the Russians communications <propaganda> effort most likely put Donald J Trump into the presidency … and we don’t know what to do and say about it.

Why?

Think about the outcome of this presentation. The main one would be that many people would believe Donald J was not a legitimate president or legitimately elected. And that would be … well … horrible. Horrible for the country, horrible for democracy and … well … just horrible. I, personally, feel a little less horrible because I still believe … 100% believe … and have written extensively that if the Clinton campaign had done a couple of things and maybe thought thru a couple of things they would have won.

All that said.

I could open this presentation by suggesting the Clinton campaign ran a slightly-less-than-effective-as-it-could-have marketing campaign but I could also showcase how the Trump campaign, in and of itself, did not do enough to win.

——- Clint Watts analysis of Russia Social Media Plan ——-

I would then have to point out that an overlaid Russian marketing campaign <which diminished Clinton to suppress behavior in her favor> made the difference at the finish line. As noted earlier, someone like MillwardBrown could prove/disprove this in ‘two notes or less.’

Anyway … before anyone argues with that premise please remember that with 136 million votes cast, Trump’s victory came down to a razor-thin edge of only 77,744 votes across three states: Pennsylvania (44,292 votes), Wisconsin (22,748 votes), and Michigan (10,704 votes) – all less than .7% difference between the two candidates … a less than full Michigan stadium … and, if reversed, Clinton would be our president.

The 2016 election result is really all about the fact that there was just enough movement in just the right places, with just enough increased turnout from just the right groups, to get Trump the electoral votes he needed to win.

Regardless. While I know from career experience advertising affects attitudes & behavior the rest, block by block, of the truth fell into place. But what make this conclusion truly horrible is … well … what do you do with that knowledge? It does no good to suggest the current president is illegitimate. None. Zero.

Look.

I am not making this up.

While others look at this in some vague “what could they do to make someone vote a certain way” I look at this from a marketing perspective where I have sat in meeting after meeting analyzing marketing campaigns and tactics to watch what levers <tactics & messages>have been pulled to get someone to do something they may not have considered doing before. Given that knowledge here were the 4 blocks which gt me there:

The first ‘block’ was, of course, when the US government warned us that 17 intelligence agencies <or 4 with others tentatively agreeing, or whatever number you want depending on your cynicism but suffice it to say the US Intelligence agencies are aligned in some form or fashion> agreed Russia was fucking within our election. They didn’t go into details but rather just said “they, they are doing this” <and did some behind the scenes stuff to deflect some things they did>.

I would also note that this is where “marketing doesn’t affect my behavior’ attitudes started digging in within the general population’s mindset … “I made my own decision” is what they say <naively I may add>.

… in addition to phishing and cracking attacks, these hackers are aided by honeypots, a Cold War term of art referring to an espionage operative who sexually seduced or compromised targets. Today’s honeypots may include a component of sexual appeal or attraction, but they just as often appear to be people who share a target’s political views, obscure personal hobbies, or issues related to family history. Through direct messaging or email conversations, honeypots seek to engage the target in conversations seemingly unrelated to national security or political influence.

These honeypots often appear as friends on social media sites, sending direct messages to their targets to lower their defenses through social engineering. After winning trust, honeypots have been observed taking part in a range of behaviors, including sharing content from white and gray active measures websites

Online hecklers, commonly referred to as trolls, energize Russia’s active measures. Ringleader accounts designed to look like real people push organized harassment — including threats of violence — designed to discredit or silence people who wield influence in targeted realms, such as foreign policy or the Syrian civil war. Once the organized hecklers select a target, a variety of volunteers will join in, often out of simple antisocial tendencies. Sometimes, they join in as a result of the target’s gender, religion, or ethnic background, with anti-Semitic and misogynistic trolling particularly prevalent at the moment. Our family members and colleagues have been targeted and trolled in this manner via Facebook and other social media.

Hecklers and honeypots can also overlap.

—————————–

The experts at WarontheRocks know their shit and I stored away their analysis.

The third ‘block’ occurred when a Bernie Sanders social media coordinator published a report of how he watched online trolls aggressively message against Clinton to Sanders supporters:

He <Mattes> put his expertise in unmasking fraudsters to work. At first, he suspected that the sites were created by the old Clinton haters from the ‘90s ― what Hillary Clinton had dubbed “the vast right-wing conspiracy.”

But when Mattes started tracking down the sites’ domain registrations, the trail led to Macedonia and Albania. In mid-September, he emailed a few of his private investigator friends with a list of the sites. “Very creepy and i do not think Koch brothers,” he wrote.

Mattes and his friends didn’t know what to make of his findings. He couldn’t get his mind around the possibility that trolls overseas might be trying to sway a bunch of Southern Californians who supported Sanders’ run for president. “I may be a dark cynic and I may have been an investigative reporter for a long time, but this was too dark ― and too unbelievable and most upsetting,” he said. “What was I to do with this?”

By late October, Mattes said he’d traced 40 percent of the domain registrations for the fake news sites he saw popping up on pro-Sanders pages back to Eastern Europe. Others appeared to be based in Panama and the U.S., or were untraceable. He wondered, “Am I the only person that sees all this crap floating through these Bernie pages?”

And the final ‘block’ was an 84 page white paper issued by the cyber security firm, TrendMicro, which outlined how easy it was to implement a ‘fake news’ marketing campaign with costs & efforts taken by Russia to influence people not only in America but globally.

That did it for me.

Let me call my ‘4 blocks’ as the cornerstones of the building of proof. I am a marketing guy and an amateur behavioral studier with decades of experience and I can see a marketing campaign when there is one … and I can see when a good one is being implemented in ‘below-the-line’ tactics pushing & nudging & influencing people to do & think things … and I can see one once I have been presented the cornerstones of proof.

This is that. And this is a horrible thing to recognize.

Oddly enough … our founding fathers worried about this.

In constructing the Constitution the crafters were cognizant, and worried about, how easily people could be led, and led astray. That is why they constructed a three ‘power’ system <executive, judiciary & representative> to insure a President never had access to too much power. In some ways they assumed at some point in history American citizens would not choose wisely.

As a marketing guy I can honestly tell you that I have sat in hundreds of conference rooms viewing behavioral data pondering choice after choice people made that were reflections of “not in my best interest” … information that reflected time after time … people do not choose wisely.

While that is marketing stuff we should all remember what James Madison said … “liberties are more frequently lost by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power.” That is what the worst of worst marketing is about … making some people choose less than wisely through a gradual and silent encroachment into someone’s decision making process.

To be clear.

I think Trump is inept, incompetent and unqualified but this is not about that. This is about how Russia affected enough people’s attitudes to affect their behavior … and many of us quasi-experts, and many real experts, believe Russia conducted a marketing campaign that did just enough to affect people’s voting behavior to effectively put Trump in the oval office.

To be clear.

None of us know what to do with this understanding. This is a horrible position to be in. No one wants to suggest the current president is not legitimate and, yet, the truth is that he most likely gained his position through some shady illegitimate ways.

I just wanted to write you a letter to bring it to your attention, in case you have not noticed; you really are the president … now.

Yes. You did get elected.

Yes. That new office you get your diet coke in is oval because all US Presidents have sat in that oval office.

Yes. That big eagle on your floor rug is not really your style <albeit I believe it does have gold in it> but it is a sign that, yes, you got elected and that emblem is part of the seal of the United State of America.

I have been meaning to write this to you for quite some time, but I felt compelled to write this letter to you today because yesterday, in the wake of the London terrorist attacks, you seemed to forget you were president for a while.

And that seems indicative of, well, all your behavior since last November <with some small moments in which we got tantalizing glimpses you actually recognized that you were now responsible for 330 million people>.

Last night you took the opportunity while watching the attacks unfold to retweet a Drudge article and a personal tweet about your own travel ban. I am tempted to suggest they were simply tweets of an ignorant idiot, full of sound and fury, simplifying nothing … but I will not. I will use the tweets to remind you that you really are now a president and the president of a certain country called “The United State of America.”

A while back I told you how to do your job because you seemed to be struggling and I thought there were some simple things you could do to rectify your current situation. Today I will simply remind you of some things you may not know about your new job:

Tweets

I really wouldn’t mind you tweeting if you didn’t tweet like a bitter husband drunk late at night just after his wife had left him. The problem is that you do … and you are not drunk and for some reason your wife has not left you. I have given up trying to convince you that words matter <even the ones you make up> so maybe we could have you work on thinking a little less like an idiotic bitter drunk husband and maybe have you think about the fact you really are a President who shouldn’t be bitter about anything and whose wife has not left him <yet>.

I do take some solace in the fact that, for the most part, your drunken bitter idiot-in-chief tweets are becoming irrelevant to the outside world. Beyond media … most simply ignore you the best they can. My main proof? You offer some word salad twisted thought and Wall Street barely responds these days.

On that note. I would suggest that being President and being ignored kind of suggests you are becoming irrelevant. That seems bad <sad>.

I would never suggest you stop tweeting. Hell. It is the best entertainment we have had in years. Maybe you could just consider in the future to just be a little less bitter, maybe sound a little less drunk, and maybe a little less “I am unwanted and unworthy of the love that has left me” and more … well … “holy shit, I am the President.”

That’s all I ask. But I am just an everyday schmuck and you are the President <keep reminding yourself of that>.

Infinite resources

I am dependent upon ‘fair & balanced’ FoxNews, NBC, fake news CNN, Drudge, National Review, Reuters, Guardian and even the failing NY Times for my information.

You are not.

………… Trump picking up phone …….

Mr. President you can actually push a little button right there on the phone next to your canopied bed with throw pillows that have those ruffles you like and maroon sateen sheets and you can most likely have the worlds best intelligence community brief you on what may be happening. You even have a Homeland Security department who could most likely tell you if there are any existing threats which you could tweet America about to calm nerves <and I bet they have a button too>.

In addition you have an Environmental Agency who has a multitude of well researched analysis to offer numbers and results from. You have a Labor Department who has an incredible history of measuring the workplace environment which you have access to for numbers and information <those last two are probably not worthy of buttons on your phone … sorry>.

You may not know it but you also have a State Department with real people in real buildings <some people call them embassies> who have real on-the-ground knowledge of where they are that are most likely to be delighted to speak with you 24/7.

I imagine my real point, Mr. President, is … well … you are no longer an everyday schmuck dependent upon whatever information you can scrounge up on your own surfing the world wide web <yes, it is now worldwide> or scanning FoxNews in the morning. You are the President and you have dozens of departments with thousands of extremely qualified people who have reams of knowledge and data and information at their fingertips at the simple push of a button <and they even know more shit before the people on TV do>.

But what do I know … I am an everyday schmuck and you are the President <keep reminding yourself of that>.

One dollar bill suggestion

Mr. President, just a suggestion. Tape a dollar bill to your desk <and, under my breath, ‘read it you asshat’>:

E Pluribus Unum.

Out of many, one.

I make this suggestion because I know you love money above everything else and maybe the one dollar bill can help, well, center you a little.

It is a fabulous little document in and of itself … think of it as a PowerPoint slide with few words and a killer image.

I would also note the second Latin motto on that same image … novus ordo seclorum <a new order of the ages> which signifies “the beginning of the new American Era.”

Both of those thoughts may remind you that you represent 330 million or so and, well , a country. It may also help to keep this humble little one dollar nearby as a symbol of small certainty as you, I would imagine, are a little uncertain as you try and make the giant leap from everyday schmuck to President.

Now.

I will admit, Mr. President, while I am sympathetic to your uncertainty I wish you would get a grip on it because it, well, creates a sense of uncertainty in the country.

I would ask you to remember, in general, uncertainty is certainly a bitch to a general population. The larger issue is that uncertainty makes people feel poorer <even when they are not>, more divided <even when they are not>, less safe <even though they are not> and less hopeful with regard to the future <even when they should see signs of hope>.

I would also suggest that, in this time & place, this uncertainty has been compounded by the fact we don’t trust anyone on anything <media included> … don’t trust anyone to do what they are supposed to do <government included> … and don’t even trust what was done when they actually do what they were supposed to do <anyone associated with any institution>. Uhm. I hesitate to tell you this but, whew, a shitload of people don’t really trust you either.

All that said. You know what everyone trusts in this wretched place where no one does anything right and is stupid or dishonest or corrupt? The one dollar bill. It is a simplistic symbol of certainty and trust. It may be that you could use his taped one dollar bill to focus you a little.

Now. You may not know it but there was a guy named Booker Washington who said … ““… be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress” <just a note: this guys is dead>. I know that may be a big thought for you so maybe I can dumb it down for you … think of it as if you have 5 one dollar bills, you can also then have a $5 dollar bill. Separate as ones but one as a $5. You see what I mean? Maybe if you look at that one dollar bill every day maybe you can start thinking ‘out of many one’ and be a President for all the $5’s, $20’s & $50’s rather than just a couple of ones.

But what do I know … I am an everyday schmuck and you are the President <keep reminding yourself of that>.

Thank you for your time today.

I am sorry I didn’t include bullet points and killer images & graphs <which I hear you like> but maybe Melania can read this to you.

Dear Mr. President, I cannot promise I will leave you alone after this letter. You seem to not only not know how to do your fucking job but you also seem to forget you are not an everyday schmuck <no matter how many of us wished you were>. I promise I will leave you alone when you fully recognize that you are now a big bad powerful man. You now not only lead America but, if you would elect to do so, you could actually lead in the world.

I do worry, on occasion, that your view of leadership and mine do not really coincide. You seem to feel that creating a transactional relationship is the same thing as creating a “leadership” relationship. That kind of feels like the same logic some misguide businesses use to recruit talented young people with cool laptops, flex time, free lunches … and not vision. Frankly, that doesn’t really foster any type of loyalty, it doesn’t really drive any company value and … well … it is killing the idea of leadership by a thousand cuts.

But what do I know … I am an everyday schmuck and you are the President <keep reminding yourself of that>.

I also worry that by choosing to remain an everyday schmuck you are finding whatever scraps in what you have done to make yourself believe you are doing good things … and you are holding on to them tightly like your teddy bear at night for comfort <in your canopied bed with sateen sheets>. I can assure you that you will need those scraps for comfort at some point if you don’t realize that is what we everyday schmucks do to comfort ourselves … but presidents kind of need to find more than scraps to hold onto.

But what do I know … I am an everyday schmuck and you are the President <keep reminding yourself of that>.

And, lastly, dear Mr. President, I worry that many of the world’s leaders are realizing you are just bluster and bullshit. I am fairly sure they weren’t sure in the beginning but now they know. But, Mr. President, I know you are better than that <I say with fingers crossed> and all of a sudden you will realize you are not an everyday schmuck but rather the President.

But what do I know … I am everyday schmuck and you are the President <keep reminding yourself of that>.

I am sending you my letter today hoping that my sincere thoughts help you realize this.

Mr. President, you have probably done over 100 things, okay, thousands of things over the past year or so which make me sure you are unqualified to be the country leader <and make me doubt you could lead a turd out of a flushed toilet>, makes me sure I dislike your business acumen and makes me sure your moral compass <assuming you even have one> is not working.

I would imagine if you remain an everyday schmuck, in your own mind you will, well, feel exactly the same way.

But … you really are the President. You really did get elected. You can start acting like a President any time you want and most of us every day schmucks will line up behind you when you do because, well, you really are the President of the United States.

All the best.

Bruce.

P.S. – Mr. President, as I read some of your tweets this morning, the morning after the London terror attacks, I have to ask you … what is wrong with you?

===================

“Democracy arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal.“

“All the animals, the plants, the minerals, even other kinds of men, are being broken and reassembled every day, to preserve an elite few, who are the loudest to theorize on freedom, but the least free of all.”

―

Thomas Pynchon

===============

Uhm.

“Normalizing your boss.”

I would say 95% of us who have had the opportunity to weave our way through corporate America to reach a senior level position have been forced to normalize the behavior of one of our bosses.

Some more than others … but in some ways you become a normalizer, or a translator or maybe sometimes you simply sweep up the mess they left behind.

That’s just what you do … uhm … assuming that boss actually has some redeeming value. As you get closer and closer to the most senior positions it becomes more and more obvious that gaining responsibility doesn’t always smooth out the edges of someone but rather more often makes that person lean harder on the specific aspects which they can use to meet the growing responsibilities. Yeah. Many leaders don’t “round out their skills & character” <and become a well-rounded leader> but rather hone the pointed skills that provide value <sacrificing some other skills & attributes along the way>.

But then … well … you run up against the ‘bull shitter in chief.’ Maybe they got their position through some family contact. Maybe they were a psychopathic ‘kill or be killed’ employee who successfully killed off any competent competitors for the position or maybe out of sheer organizational incompetence they rose to a position in which they are completely unqualified for.

All they have in their hip pocket is more bullshit.

But they are your boss.

Whew.

Defending selectively incompetent behavior is one thing. Defending ongoing bull shit is another. Why? The former can actually enhance your reputation <and improve your own skills as you provide solutions in real time> while the latter only diminishes your reputation.

Yeah.

I am sure some people will debate what I just wrote but I would suggest they will only end up quibbling over my phrasing and not the truth behind the thought.

Reputation is not a simple concept. Your reputation is made up of a variety of things which means you can fuck up in one place but offering a strength in another situation simply builds your reputation unevenly <which can be managed if you are self-aware>. The problem with normalizing a bull shitter’s incompetent behavior is that you aren’t shoring up selective incompetence/deficiencies you are actually forced to normalize their behavior by offering an alternative truth to whatever bullshit truth they advocated on all fronts – not selective.

I imagine the majority of us have never really faced this either <a> as a full onslaught from an incompetent boss — because most organizations weed out this problem fairly efficiently or <b> for long <most bull shitters get exposed by ambitious less senior competent no-nonsense fairly quickly>.

But, yet, I tend to believe in our nightmare scenarios in our minds we worry about what we would do if faced with an ongoing incompetent bull shitter boss scenario.

Personally <and anyone who knows me will probably nod their head and go ‘yeah’> I wouldn’t be able to do it. I would actually call bullshit <and get fired or ‘eased into a different responsibility’>.

But, even that said, having been in a quasi-position like this you have a tendency to take on each bullshit situation as discrete from another and avoid any real pattern of behavior until forced to actually face a pattern of behavior. That is how we deal with it … and that is also the personal risk we run as we ignore the larger situation rationalizing it in our own minds as ‘discrete scraps of irresponsible incompetent boss behavior.’

Beyond the fact the trip was bookended with a self-proclaimed “big foreign trip” and a self-proclaimed self-reported “home run” in between there were a number of cringe-able moments in which people were demanded to stand up and become responsible for defending or explaining some tone-deaf remark, some historically ignorant comment or some insensitive gaffe that the president did over the entire big adventure.

Was it the bullying body language he demonstrated at the NATO summit, shoving aside the Prime Minister of Montenegro? <a small country that I am fairly sure the president has no clue where it is>

Was it his apparent unawareness of where Israel is located, an ignorance displayed when he informed an audience of Israelis that he’d “just got back from the Middle East”?

Was it his seeming indifference to the difference between “Islamist” and “Islamic” in front of an Islam audience <a mistake he blamed on exhaustion on the 2nd day of a trip … “does he have the stamina?”>

Was it his belief that after stating for months that NATO was obsolete that it was unnecessary to verbally state USA unequivocally stood with its NATO partners?

Was it his constant misstatements with regard to how NATO actually works?

Was it after a less than 30 minute visit to Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust memorial, which <or any Holocaust museum> has a nasty habit of bringing people to tears or, at minimum, some deep reflection with regard to humanity and the sometimes startling cruelty humans can inflict upon one another … he left an absurdly out of touch positive note in the memorial’s Book of Remembrance – “It is a great honor to be here with all my friends – so amazing and will never forget!”

Was it his odd alternative universe in which he suggests he has “righted people’s views of where America stands with friends & enemies after a misguided 8 Obama years” where Saudi Arabia is a good friend <let’s avoid they have none of the freedoms America typically support> and where Germany is described as “bad” <albeit only their trade deals … uhm … and their views on immigration … uhm … and their views on globalism>.

Was it his unflinching ability to lie to the face of the world’s newest democratic leader Macron by unequivocally falsely, in a sincere voice, stating “I was for you.”

Or, finally, was it the overarching sadness <to most Americans> in watching the seeming shift to ‘pragmatic relationships policy” <ones in which money exchange defines who we like and who we do not like> in which we find ourselves watching our leaders partying with disciplined non democratic autocrats and constantly showing uneasiness and sincere lack of warmth in interactions with the world’s finest democratic leaders.

Sigh.

Here is what I know <about not only Trump but normalizing a boss’s behavior>.

If I were working for Trump I would find it hard to read any news … but particularly European newspapers … without cringing and certainly being embarrassed.

But if Trump were my boss where I would be most concerned is that he would be using me to lend some legitimacy … because he was seriously lacking in any legitimacy.

And that is where one needs to step back and worry about their reputation.

Because lending credibility for a boss who has selective competency is different than lending credibility for a … well … “bull shitter in chief” boss.

As one article put it well … “seasoned people simply lend an air of occasional competence to an otherwise shambolic White House. By appearing before the cameras, looking serious and speaking rationally, they add a veneer of normality to this administration.”

And maybe that is where this whole thing ends up.

It is not about us, the people and media, accepting Donald J Trump’s behavior or getting numbed into believing it is normal … it will be about experienced competent people deciding how much they want to normalize his behavior. This whole situation is not really about a decision on what is best for America <although they will certainly be forced into thinking about that>, but rather their own reputation.

Good competent people will be standing there knowing they can contribute to <a> doing what is right and <b> herding an incompetent boss … both of which America in a larger context benefits … and, yet, they stand there watching their own reputations slowly slip away … drip by drip … word by word.

Good competent people can normalize selective incompetence but they will struggle to normalize a ‘bull shitter’ whose only competence is ongoing ignorance. At some point people will begin questioning your own competence as you continuously articulate some semblance of nonsensical normalcy and they will definitely start questioning … well … your integrity or character.

And then what do you do? Because, in the end, that is what you are left with – just you & your character.

Why?

Because, frankly, no matter how skilled you are a shitload of people in this world are just as experienced as you are and a lot of people are skilled and competent just like you … therefore you get judged, ultimately, on what you did when faced with a situation — did you speak up?

Did you defend the wrong and indefensible? Did you do what was right?

I am not suggesting this is easy.

In fact … a good bull shitter can offer such an elegant smoke screen it can offer the competent some cover so they can offer up some truth and competence in a way that … well … is true & competent.

However, in the end, the difficulty resides in the smoke itself.

Because at some point every competent person associated with a bull shitter is asked to explain the smoke … and … well … how do I explain the smoke?

You cant. And, worse? You cannot put out the fire.

Good people, no matter how good, will choke on the smoke eventually.

….. choice when working for a bullshitter in chief ……

And, let’s be clear, no one wants to see good people die.

It is painful to watch. It is painful to watch good competent people being broken and reassembled every day, to preserve someone, who are the loudest to theorize on freedom, but the least free of all.”

That is the personal choice one makes when normalizing a boss … how much smoke is there and will I choke from the smoke they make?

I cannot offer a well-defined “here is how you know and what you should do” today because … well … this is a personal choice. But no matter who you are and where you are … watching good competent people standing in the smoke being demanded to define a smoke, not of their own making, is painful. And sad. .